Change of Ownership

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Do the Canucks need a change of ownership?

Poll ended at Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:49 pm

Yes
5
63%
No
3
38%
 
Total votes: 8

Kowch
CC Veteran
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Change of Ownership

Post by Kowch » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:49 pm

I've been thinking about this for a bit now and thought I'd see what the rest of the board thinks.

While I was happy that there was a local owner (well, owners) that stepped up to buy the organization when McCaw decided to sell, in the last few years I've become less enamored with the Aquilini's and the way the team is run.

If any of the numerous rumors are true about ownership hamstringing/micromanaging/meddling with hockey operations ability to improve the team, then it's clear that the team needs new owners in order to turn things around. While I'm not a fan of the team, you have to give the Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch props. He goes out, hires good hockey people and then *gasp* lets them do their jobs. That's what's missing here.

Thoughts?

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15107
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Hockey Widow » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:56 pm

Hard one to call. On the one hand we have owners with deep pockets and they are willing to spend. I'd hate to get stingy ownership here.

On the other hand we have rumours of meddling, the extent, type etc but nothing proven. I mean I've heard them all too and posted more than my share on this board. But it is all still rumour.

So the only fact we have is that they do spend money.

Let's face it, all owners are involved in some way, either by abdication or direct but varying degrees of involvement. It's an owner's right. New owners don't mean better owners.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2320
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Lancer » Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:32 pm

Anybody miss McCaw and company these days?

What you want are people with deep pockets who will leave the hockey stuff to hockey people. Hell, why doesn't BCE grab a controlling stake in the club like they do with the Habs and Leaves? Maybe get a chance at a fair shake from the league office. Then again, they may buy the club just to act as a punching dummy for their eastern darling clubs.
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.

User avatar
The Brown Wizard
CC Legend
Posts: 8556
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by The Brown Wizard » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:17 pm

Lancer wrote:Then again, they may buy the club just to act as a punching dummy for their eastern darling clubs.
Why not...the on ice version is already the punching dummy for the other 29 teams
Witchcraft... Oh, but it IS. A dark and terrible magic...

Kowch
CC Veteran
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Kowch » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:20 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Hard one to call. On the one hand we have owners with deep pockets and they are willing to spend. I'd hate to get stingy ownership here.

On the other hand we have rumours of meddling, the extent, type etc but nothing proven. I mean I've heard them all too and posted more than my share on this board. But it is all still rumour.

So the only fact we have is that they do spend money.

Let's face it, all owners are involved in some way, either by abdication or direct but varying degrees of involvement. It's an owner's right. New owners don't mean better owners.
While I agree with you that new owners don't mean better owners, but spending money only goes so far. If even 1/10th of the rumors are true (see Hamhuis, Kesler, Luongo/Schneider, Torts), the guys making the hockey decisions aren't able to make the right hockey decisions. Couple the rumors with Francesco threatening reporters for defamation because of the meddling rumors. For me, where's there's smoke, there's fire.

From the article:

'Much of the distancing revolves around the hiring of Mr. Tortorella, whose reputation as a firebrand and penchant to coach defensive hockey made him a controversial choice last year. On Monday, Francesco Aquilini sent a Globe and Mail reporter a text message warning of legal action after the newspaper published a story discussing the family’s involvement in the hiring.

“I read your article today. You are a prick,” it said. Two hours later, a legal letter from the family’s counsel arrived by e-mail. It alleged defamation, sought a retraction and an apology, and threatened further action."

I agree with you; ultimately it's the owners money and it's their prerogative on how they want to run their team. But we (as fans) don't have to like it and need to voice our displeasure at the job being done.
Lancer wrote: Anybody miss McCaw and company these days?

What you want are people with deep pockets who will leave the hockey stuff to hockey people. Hell, why doesn't BCE grab a controlling stake in the club like they do with the Habs and Leaves? Maybe get a chance at a fair shake from the league office. Then again, they may buy the club just to act as a punching dummy for their eastern darling clubs.
Don't really miss McCaw. There has to be another Mike Ilitch out there. Too bad Gaglardi didn't win the original bid.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15107
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Hockey Widow » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:38 pm

Gags was set to bring BB back as president and GM. it would have been interesting to see. Gags at least let's the management run the team. All those rumours last year that he tried to screw Vancouver over the Hamhuis affair, I have been told, were BS. He stays out of the way.
The only HW the Canucks need

Kowch
CC Veteran
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Kowch » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:07 am

I agree. Everything I've read pointed to the Aquilini asking for too much in order to kill the deal, quite possibly in spite.

Then we lose Hamhuis for nothing and he ends up in Dallas anyway.

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9509
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by micky107 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:58 am

The owners own the team, the name, the building, everything.
I don't think it's up to fans to ask if we need new ones?????
Ups and downs come and go. It's pro sports.
We should be thankful we have an NHL franchise. :look:
"evolution"

Fifty Fifty
CC Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Fifty Fifty » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:17 am

Kowch wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Hard one to call. On the one hand we have owners with deep pockets and they are willing to spend. I'd hate to get stingy ownership here.

On the other hand we have rumours of meddling, the extent, type etc but nothing proven. I mean I've heard them all too and posted more than my share on this board. But it is all still rumour.

So the only fact we have is that they do spend money.

Let's face it, all owners are involved in some way, either by abdication or direct but varying degrees of involvement. It's an owner's right. New owners don't mean better owners.
While I agree with you that new owners don't mean better owners, but spending money only goes so far. If even 1/10th of the rumors are true (see Hamhuis, Kesler, Luongo/Schneider, Torts), the guys making the hockey decisions aren't able to make the right hockey decisions. Couple the rumors with Francesco threatening reporters for defamation because of the meddling rumors. For me, where's there's smoke, there's fire.

From the article:

'Much of the distancing revolves around the hiring of Mr. Tortorella, whose reputation as a firebrand and penchant to coach defensive hockey made him a controversial choice last year. On Monday, Francesco Aquilini sent a Globe and Mail reporter a text message warning of legal action after the newspaper published a story discussing the family’s involvement in the hiring.

“I read your article today. You are a prick,” it said. Two hours later, a legal letter from the family’s counsel arrived by e-mail. It alleged defamation, sought a retraction and an apology, and threatened further action."

I agree with you; ultimately it's the owners money and it's their prerogative on how they want to run their team. But we (as fans) don't have to like it and need to voice our displeasure at the job being done.
Lancer wrote: Anybody miss McCaw and company these days?

What you want are people with deep pockets who will leave the hockey stuff to hockey people. Hell, why doesn't BCE grab a controlling stake in the club like they do with the Habs and Leaves? Maybe get a chance at a fair shake from the league office. Then again, they may buy the club just to act as a punching dummy for their eastern darling clubs.
Don't really miss McCaw. There has to be another Mike Ilitch out there. Too bad Gaglardi didn't win the original bid.
I don't buy the "where there's smoke there's fire" analogy here. If Aquilini sues then he opens himself up to a discovery process that could easily ferret out what actually went down. Truth is a defence to a defamation claim. FA could have been bluffing, but the Globe and Mail will have defamation lawyers on retainer so it's not like he was challenging some guy on a hockey board.

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 10949
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by SKYO » Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:12 am

Kowch trying to get sued? lol so much allegations.

ala burke - a18.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

Kowch
CC Veteran
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Kowch » Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:30 pm

micky107 wrote:The owners own the team, the name, the building, everything.
I don't think it's up to fans to ask if we need new ones?????
Ups and downs come and go. It's pro sports.
We should be thankful we have an NHL franchise. :look:
While I appreciate you defining what an owner is for me( :D ) I respectively disagree. Rightly or wrongly, I'm loyal to the team that represents the city I was born in; where I'm from. I've been Canucks fan for nearly 35 years regardless of the owner and regardless of the players that owner brings in or ships out.

It should be fine to question the owners if they're impeding our team from winning. I suppose I should have framed the question more along the lines of "Do we need new ownership in order to win a Stanley Cup". That answer (in my opinion) is yes.

While I'm thankful that Vancouver has an NHL franchise, it doesn't give the ownership group an uncritical pass to do whatever they want. I lived in Atlanta when the NHL pulled the franchise out of there due to shitty ownership. Contrary to what you read, the Thrashers had huge grassroots support, especially north of the city where people would travel over an hour in horrible traffic to get to the games. Ultimately after making the playoffs once in 12 years (and getting swept in 4), people stopped going because ownership couldn't get their head out of their ass. Atlanta Spirit (the ownership group) refused to invest money in team and they allowed a shitty management group to continue to run the team (which they hamstrung in the first place) into the ground.

Do we as fans have the power to change this? Outside of voting with our wallets (which many fans are doing the last couple seasons; at the risk of the team going through the "we might have to move bullshit" again), no we don't. But we sure as hell have a right to question the people making the decisions for a team that we invest not just money, but emotion into.
micky107 wrote: I don't buy the "where there's smoke there's fire" analogy here. If Aquilini sues then he opens himself up to a discovery process that could easily ferret out what actually went down. Truth is a defence to a defamation claim. FA could have been bluffing, but the Globe and Mail will have defamation lawyers on retainer so it's not like he was challenging some guy on a hockey board.
I disagree. It wasn't just the Globe. They hit the Province with the same letter over their musings over the sketchy hiring of Torts. It's a case of "you doth protest too much". If an owner is serving up letters threatening legal action over sports rumors that really weren't incendiary, doesn't that seem a bit much? Not sure if you read the rest of the article, but the next couple of paragraphs go on to say:
The Globe And Mail wrote: The legal push also took aim at The Province newspaper in Vancouver, which several weeks earlier in a column had mentioned the Aquilinis’ role in the Tortorella hiring. Mr. Shapray on Monday sent a legal letter to The Province and made similar demands as were made of The Globe.

The Aquilinis’ statements skirt how the hiring played out. Mr. Gillis last year had invited the Aquilinis into interviews with various coaches. The family, according to a person with direct knowledge of the events, was particularly taken with Mr. Tortorella, who had been fiery in the past. They saw a coach who could revive an underperforming hockey team. The Aquilinis wanted Mr. Tortorella, and Mr. Gillis and the other hockey executives came to the same conclusion.

The Globe sought Mr. Aquilini’s comment last week but did not hear back.
So I don't know about you, but if my boss asks for my opinion, but wants something else, he's getting that something else because he's my employer. So why bother with the lawyer? What point is he trying to make?

And for the record, this is the original article from the Globe and Mail. I don't see anything there that's defamation worthy (although I'm not a lawyer... but I did stay in an Holiday Inn Express once).
SKYO wrote:Kowch trying to get sued? lol so much allegations.

ala burke - a18.
Mmmmmm... no... :mrgreen:

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9509
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by micky107 » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:13 am

Not going to quote something that (misquotes) parts of what others and myself said.
You really should get that right. It's like misrepresentation, (liable) :evil:
J/K, won't sue, this time. :lol: :lol:

Well, like quite a few here, I've supported this club since the start but the owners are the owners and where as you may question, ridicule, cheer, boo anything they do or don't do. Hell, you can even make out a protest sign and go on a little march in front of their offices if you desire.
What you cannot do is have a controlling say in what they do.
Unless, of course, you buy them out or they allow you to become a share holder.
But you know this, right?
"evolution"

User avatar
dangler
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: Commercial Drive Coffee shop

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by dangler » Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:14 am

So it's the Aqualinni's fault the team is losing!

And i thought it was a lack of scoring.

Thanks for the enlightenment
Loui is tougher to get rid of than ear hair

Kowch
CC Veteran
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Kowch » Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:27 am

micky107 wrote:Not going to quote something that (misquotes) parts of what others and myself said.
You really should get that right. It's like misrepresentation, (liable) :evil:
J/K, won't sue, this time. :lol: :lol:
Where have I misquoted you? Or anyone else for that matter?
micky107 wrote: Well, like quite a few here, I've supported this club since the start but the owners are the owners and where as you may question, ridicule, cheer, boo anything they do or don't do. Hell, you can even make out a protest sign and go on a little march in front of their offices if you desire.
What you cannot do is have a controlling say in what they do.
Unless, of course, you buy them out or they allow you to become a share holder.
But you know this, right?
Of course I know that. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think I have any controlling say. I'm a fan of the Vancouver Canucks, same as you.

But this isn't any different than calling for the GM or coach to be fired or certain players to be traded. We (as fans) have no control over the running of the club but yet we come to boards like this one to have our say on what we like about the team and what we don't like about the team. I don't see you saying "The GM is the GM" or "the players are the players" or "the coach is the coach" in other threads. Why is this topic any different?

I posited that the current ownership group is hindering the teams ability to win it all. Their hands on approach to managing the team is a problem and they don't seem to trust the hockey people they hire to make hockey decisions. If you disagree,that's fine but you need to articulate why; "the owners are the owners" isn't an argument.

Kowch
CC Veteran
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Re: Change of Ownership

Post by Kowch » Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:33 am

dangler wrote:So it's the Aqualinni's fault the team is losing!

And i thought it was a lack of scoring.

Thanks for the enlightenment
Mismanagement is a part of it is it not? If they are nixing trades that would improve the club, do they not share in the culpability?

To be clear, there are many reasons why the team sucks right now. But it takes leadership to make the changes required to win. I don't have faith that they'll make the decisions needed or change their methods.

Post Reply